Disposed

Bezawada Laxminarayana v. Ramanayyapeta Grampanchayat

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Nov 2022WP/21221/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of two interconnected writ petitions challenging demolition action. Finding_that_no_exemplary_notice_was_placed_on_record,_the_court directed respondents to issue a fresh notice within four weeks granting the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing before any demolition action.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to issue a fresh notice within four weeks; petitioner granted three weeks to explain; status quo maintained until further orders.

Bezawada Laxminarayana Vs Ramanayyapeta… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

Writ Petition No.21212 of 2011 AND

¶3

Writ Petition No.21221 of 2011

¶4

COMMON ORDER:-

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Grampanchayat.

¶6

As both the writ petitions are interconnected, the same are disposed of by this following common order.

¶7

The present W.P.No.21212 of 2011 and W.P.No.21221 of 2011 came to be filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing any notice or give an opportunity to explain the structures raised, before initiating action of demolition of petitioner’s building bearing House No.9-18, in Plot No.48, Northern part, situated in A.P. Government Employees CoOperative House Building Society Colony, Srinivasanagar, Ramanayyapeta Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, which was constructed with

¶8

¶9

CPK,J W.P.Nos.21212 & 21221 of 2011

¶10

Grampanchayat permission dated 17.09.1996 as illegal, improper and incorrect.

¶11

By an order dated 28.07.2011, in both the writ petitions, this Court while issuing notice before admission ordered interim stay of demolition of the building bearing House No.9-18, Plot No.48, Northern part, situated in A.P. Government Employees Co-Operative House Building Society Colony, Srinivasanagar, Ramanayyapeta Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. Thereafter on 26.08.2011, the interim order was directed to be continued until further orders. Pending W.P.No.21221 of 2011, the proposed petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 bringing the Legal Representatives of the petitioner /deceased on record. Taking into consideration the facts in issue and in the absence of any counter being filed the said I.A. is allowed.

¶12

Sri E. Sambasiva Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner, mainly submits that the petitioner herein has constructed building in his land after obtaining permission from the Grampanchayat and though they are in

¶13

¶14

CPK,J W.P.Nos.21212 & 21221 of 2011

¶15

possession and enjoyment of the same since 1981, the authorities are trying to demolition of building without due process of law. It is said that on 22.07.2011 afternoon, the 1^st respondent came to the said site and tried to demolish the building, which made the petitioner to approach this Court. This action of the petitioner is sought to be questioned mainly on the ground that the same is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.

¶16

A counter came to be filed by the 1^st respondent, disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that before taking action, the District Panchayat Officer issued Urgent Memo on 02.07.2011 to the Panchayat Secretary for removal of encroachments. Thereafter, a notice dated 07.07.2011 was issued to the petitioner seeking his explanation, but suppressing the said fact the present writ petition came to be filed. The averments in the counter further show that the said land is part and parcel of layout No.484/81 dated 23.12.1981 issued by the Director Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad. In other words, the entire gamut of

¶17

¶18

CPK,J W.P.Nos.21212 & 21221 of 2011

¶19

counter appears to be that the land belongs to the Grampanchayat.

¶20

A reply came to be filed disputing the averments made in the counter stating that no notice, as stated in the counter, has been issued and if really such a notice was issued, nothing prevented the respondents from filing a copy of the same along with the counter.

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the authorities were right in interfering with the property in dispute without following due process of law?

¶22

As seen from the record, prima facie the petitioner appears to be in possession of the said property by raising structures. Though the respondents in their counter speak about issuance of notice on 07.07.2011, but a copy of the same is not placed on record. Things would have been different had atleast a copy of the notice given and served on the petitioner is placed on record atleast after the denial of the same filed by the petitioner in his reply. In the

¶23

¶24

CPK,J W.P.Nos.21212 & 21221 of 2011

¶25

absence of the same, a doubt arises as to whether a notice dated 07.07.2011 was issued to the petitioner?

¶26

Having regard to the interim orders passed by this Court and taking into consideration the stand taken by the respondents in their counter, the respondents are at liberty to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in both the writ petitions, within a period of four (4) weeks from 21.11.2022 by giving reasonable time of atleast three (3) weeks to the petitioner to submit their explanation and thereafter the authorities shall pass orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Till such time, status-quo obtained as on today shall be maintained with regard to the property in dispute. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

Miscellane o us petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶28

_ ______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶29

Date: 15.11.2022 MS

¶30

¶31

CPK,J W.P.Nos.21212 & 21221 of 2011

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶33

Writ Petition No.21212 of 2011 AND Writ Petition No.21221 of 2011

¶34

Date:15.11.2022

¶35

Bezawada Laxminarayana v. Ramanayyapeta Grampanchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bezawada Laxminarayana v. Ramanayyapeta Grampanchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sowjanya, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Baru Krishnaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

D.Ganesh Vs State of Ap., Rep.by its Secretary to Government

Burri Venkayya Naidu Vs Ramanayyapeta Grampanchayat

Smt.Burle Sowbhagya Lakshmi Vs a. Bhanu Pratap

Akula Venkata Rama Joggaiah, E.G.Dist. Vs Govt. of a.P., P.R Dept., Hyd and 3 Othrs